I found the graph above, sampled from Justin Fox’s post at Bloomberg View, very interesting. Note solar energy’s position in the graph. It isn’t there. Mr. Fox remarks:
The chart only included the top five sources of electrical power in the U.S. Perhaps surprisingly, solar power doesn’t make the cut. Even when you include the Energy Information Administration’s estimate of the power generated by rooftop panels and other small-scale solar, it’s still in seventh place behind biomass (burning wood, mainly).
Solar is gaining fast, though, and in a few places, it has already arrived.
He goes on to note that solar is presently California’s second largest method of electrical power generation, probably an overstatement since California imports about a third of its electricity and a lot of that comes from coal.
At the present rate of increase I don’t expect solar to be a significant source of overall U. S. electrical power generation in my lifetime and I may live another couple of decades.
There are a lot of variables to consider. We’re probably past peak subsidy for solar energy. What effect will reduced subsidies have on solar energy? There’s no Moore’s Law for solar cells or batteries. A major breakthrough may be just around the corner or present efficiencies may be as good as it gets for the next century. There’s really no way to tell.
Note that this post doesn’t indicate any particular hostility to solar energy on my part. I’m just trying to put things into perspective.
And the problem of baseload power generation/storage remains….
A well worn graphic and well worn issues. The big story of the last 10 years has been the rotation from coal to natural gas. How much of that is regulatory vs science and economic would require regaining a familiarity.
It would be foolish to not use hydro, solar and wind where applicable. But they are niche sources, as they have been for decades, and will be for the foreseeable future.
The elephant in the room is nuclear power. France generates some 70-80%. It exports. If we really cared about global warming, cheap energy and to leave theMiddle East quagmire behind we would ManhattanProject a nuclear program. Almost makes you think those aren’t the objectives….(snicker).
I probably should put up the corresponding graphic showing sales of electric and hybrid vehicles. At the present rate of adoption I won’t live to see a majority of the vehicles on the road being either electrics or hybrids let alone most or all of them.
Hydro power has peaked – there are few good dam sites left and most of those would affect protected areas.
The absolute installed capacity isn’t what matters. Look at the growth rate:
http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Fig1-SolarGrowthWithITC-2017YIR.png
In less than five years, with or without subsidies, the energy mix will be entirely different.
It’s good to see your graph, Ben. We were one of the first, in our neighborhood, to opt for solar, some 10 years ago. Earlier, we looked into wind energy on some rural property, but that didn’t turn out to be a beneficial alternative. I think solar does have a good future, especially in areas having a climate where you can access enough daily sunlight.
Your math is wrong, Ben. Look at the labeling of the axes again. Doubling every year—something that’s extremely unlikely—in five years solar still won’t register on the graph at the top of the post.
California, Nevada, Arizona—those are the low-hanging fruit of solar. They’ll adopt it because it makes sense there. There’s a lot of the country in which it will not make sense.
The numbers are wrong. And that growth rate pitch is the same that has been going on for at least 10-12 years. We get the pitch books. And as I’ve noted before, then we get the pitch books for bankrupt solar projects that “for a nominal investment you can own a majority interest….” They are like ads for Bert Weinman used cars.
Pass.
Looks like Bert could use some coal induced global warming to prevent those darned overstocks………
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bert+weinman+ford+commercials&view=detail&mid=75609F86714FAB43DC8F75609F86714FAB43DC8F&FORM=VIRE
I stand by my statement.
You can stand by it all you like but the numbers are against you. 16,000 MW doubling in one year would be 32,000 MW, 2 years 64,000, 3 years 128,000, 4 years 256,000, 5 years 512,000 MW. That’s against 1,400 TW for natural gas in 2007. Solar wouldn’t even be at about the level that wind or hydro was in 2007. Energy mix entirely different? You’re dreaming.
You can also look at the EIA’s site for the most recent numbers. Solar is .9% of electricity generation. Half the amount generated by biomass. 20% of the amount generated by wind. And that’s with more than a decade of enormous subsidies.
There’s a practical reason it’s unlikely to increase that fast. For that to happen indium production would need to increase, too, or indium prices would need to go down or people would need to be willing to pay a lot more for solar panels than they do now. Indium prices have been rising for the last couple of years and production has been flat.
Because of intermittency, both solar and wind require so-called backup generators. Because these backups must come on line quickly (seconds), they are always natural gas fueled turbines. The turbines also have to be idling when not on line, so there is a continuous emission of carbon dioxide.
Of course, the real scandal is that the capacity factors of wind and solar are anywhere from 5% to 35%, with most sites tending toward the lower end. In Texas, the whole-state capacity factor is less than 9%. This means that the so-called backup is actually providing between 65 and 90% of the total power. The solar and wind units are unnecessary, and expensive add-ons to the real power source.
Then there is the whole rationale, reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Gore’ favorite chart, the Vostok ice core data, shows that temperature LEADS carbon dioxide by 400 to 800 years. (See Jonova for a useful summary.) This means that temperature changes drive carbon dioxide changes, due to outgassing from the oceans as they warm, and reabsorption as they cool. These temperature changes are known to be driven by Milankovitch cycles, especially the obliquity.
Historically, there are also shorter term cycles of about 2,500 years driven by changes in solar output: the Hallstatt solar cycles. The Little Ice Age was the most recent of these cycles, which coincide with low solar output. We climbed out of the Little Ice Age as solar output increased, and until recently we were in a solar maximum. It should be noted that the recent temperature increase also led the recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, so temperature leading carbon dioxide occurs during Hallstatt cycles, too.
The entire carbon dioxide scare is the product of bad, dishonest science, and the drive to increase solar and wind is criminal fraud.
The entire denial of climate change is the product of bad, dishonest pseudoscience and the drive to maintain coal and petroleum based profits.
With wind, better forecasting makes it possible to minimize use of back ups. IIRC, Iowa is now leader in wind power.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/526541/smart-wind-and-solar-power/
Finally, we do need to keep up. In March Wind and solar accounted for 10% of energy generation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-reports-a-major-milestone-in-wind-and-solar-power/
Of which, as your article documents, solar was 2%. That’s what I mean by perspective.
You know, everyone’s cocksure about things like solar, and their rosy predictions, and fake-left-go-right analysis when its just going off on an internet site, or playing with OPM. When they have to stroke a personal, irrevocable, check for $200K large……..not so much.
That’s why Funds have the so called GP Commitment.
Drew, I have not gotten into the weeds on solar. I only know, from personal experience, it works for us. Like you said too, it’s a niche energy souce, and, as far as I’m concerned, part of the “all of the above” options that patchwork-quilt in a variety of routes people can take to create a viable energy package for themselves.